RQ is great for QLD golf, brings a bit of the Melbourne/links golf skill set. A fun course to play to 90 HC, wide fairways, 2nd shoot close to green and have fun with the 11-12 stimp roll, you will need some strategy to play to 80 and then shot shape and ball flight control, creative putting to shoot low 70's. Then they move the tees and pins and a new strategy is needed.

Most other QLD SE courses tell you where too hit the ball, Driver- 3 wood/ 3iron to the corner then 2nd shot has 1-2 club difference pending the pin pos and wind. Greens are generally soft and receptive. Builds a skill set that is particular to a style of course. Very similar to golf in Asia and Florida etc

Norman, Baker finch, Scott, Cam smith etc etc have all picked up this variant in their skill set at RQ after coming from other QLD courses. RQ is not for everyone, I get that, but much like some of the southern courses it offers something more to challenge golfers other than how straight you hit the ball with accurate distance and spin, ie range golf.

Brookwater is also great: Strategy and accuracy are key, challenging but not always enjoyable because of this difficulty for all levels of golfer. A course you can feel an achievement for every well struck shot but the course does tell you where to hit it, its up to your ability to comply. Some holes seems too busy and are keen on punishing the golfer with only the perfect shot as a reward, A big difference between a 90 and 80 a round, tough going for older, younger and lady golfers. Tees to suit your handicap and distance is a great feature but pins verses green side danger doesn't vary much. Worth a round if you are in SEQLD and want to test your games resilience for sure.

My way of ranking courses I have played and why I come up with a diverse top 3.

RQ, Brookie, Hamo.

Everyone has their own standards, motivations and opinions which shape their experience on a golf course.

Standards: 1. Course maintenance is a big one for me, 2. Operations staff proficiency and reception of visitors is

always a measure and indinicator of a clubs/course standard for me. 3. Course design, not if its the best course design but are the using what they have, property, funds, experience etc.

Motivations: 1. Can my game compete to my HC on this course and its conditions. 2. Does the course offer something different to add to my game, did it find many many Hole in my game, most likely.

developing an Opinion: 1. A golf experience is what I am after, not value for money or a material take always or status of playing on X or Y course. I try not to buy in to the cost, extras and hype. Be present in the round and enjoy it for what it is. Some golf experience you can't replicate hence why you went to a destination to play there. I.e. Tassie golf. Hamo. Melbourne even GC style v Brisbane.

Norman, Baker finch, Scott, Cam smith etc etc have all picked up this variant in their skill set at RQ after coming from other QLD courses.

A small correction, Norman, IBF and Scotty all played their early golf on the old RQ course which bore no resemblance to the current RQ at all - not even remotely.

The old course was all about how straight you hit the ball, doglegs, old style small raised greens often cantered severely from back to front. It demanded accuracy and an ability to control your shots in the prevailing breezes, and bump and run the ball.

Cam Smith, I doubt he even played the old course, or if he did, he was very young indeed.

There are polarising opinions about the new RQ v the old RQ. Me, I preferred the old, but a lot of people like the new. What's it matter - the old is gone!

A small correction, Norman, IBF and Scotty all played their early golf on the old RQ course which bore no resemblance to the current RQ at all - not even remotely.

The old course was all about how straight you hit the ball, doglegs, old style small raised greens often cantered severely from back to front. It demanded accuracy and an ability to control your shots in the prevailing breezes, and bump and run the ball.

Cam Smith, I doubt he even played the old course, or if he did, he was very young indeed.

There are polarising opinions about the new RQ v the old RQ. Me, I preferred the old, but a lot of people like the new. What's it matter - the old is gone!

Never played the old but was pretty impressed with the new RQ. Quite interesting when you talk to people after major changes at their golf course. Most of the courses where I have played after changes have usually been done by Mike Clayton. Always with polarising opinions. Not sure if it is the fact changes have occurred, or that they were done by Clayton which are the cause.

Remember my old club going through changes which certainly caused controversy when being put forward. Only five votes got the changes over the line. During the changes lots of whinging, but after all completed have never heard so much praise.

Curious why you liked the old vs new RQ. I like the fact that there are multiple options to get to the hole, but some lines are much better than others. Quite open in appearance but still some areas where you can get caught out.

Never played the old but was pretty impressed with the new RQ. Quite interesting when you talk to people after major changes at their golf course. Most of the courses where I have played after changes have usually been done by Mike Clayton. Always with polarising opinions. Not sure if it is the fact changes have occurred, or that they were done by Clayton which are the cause.

Remember my old club going through changes which certainly caused controversy when being put forward. Only five votes got the changes over the line. During the changes lots of whinging, but after all completed have never heard so much praise.

Curious why you liked the old vs new RQ. I like the fact that there are multiple options to get to the hole, but some lines are much better than others. Quite open in appearance but still some areas where you can get caught out.

Change in itself is often met with resistance, regardless of the outcome.

In RQ's situation, they had no choice but to totally redesign their course due to the duplication of the Gateway Bridge. This meant the new layout would need to be situated west of the new bridge utilising inferior land that the Club already owned.

I say inferior because it was dead-flat reclaimed land composed of salt laden river silt - not exactly ideal for exciting golf holes. In fact, as part of the deal done with the Qld Government, RQ continues to own the land to the east of the bridge. This land is far superior, but of course there is now an issue with access due to the bridge corridor. There are plans in place for a new course on that land.

The old RQ was a great members' course that could be brought up to tournament standards simply by growing the rough. The small greens, tight fairways, and ever present wind made for very challenging golf.

In truth though, the course was in need of a revamp after some disastrous attempts by TWP and Ross Watson. In essence it had become a mishmash of conflicting design philosophies and needed updating. Perhaps the best way to describe the old course is it was a parkland course with links-like features in that it had small raised greens, deep pot bunkers, and provided a player options with the approach shots to the greens.

Purely from a design standpoint, I think the new course is really only about the difficulty of the green precincts. Forget for a moment that the Club decided to remain with an old technology grass, 328, which means the greens are very firm and very grainy due to the contours. The effective target areas on the greens are now so precise and unforgiving to anything other than a short iron approach shot, which is why I have said elsewhere, I think it is a big hitters' course. There are too few options available for a run-in approach.

Then there are the bunkers, and yes, I know they are meant to be hazards, as Clayton will readily trot out in defending his work, but they have been problematic from day one and hugely unpopular with the Membership. They were by design way too narrow with steep sides which meant that almost all shots had to be played from a severe down slope at the back of the bunker. Not something that most club golfers are good at. There have been many attempts to rectify this and I understand it is still ongoing. The bunker design also creates maintenance nightmares for greens staff as they wash out with the heavy rain experienced in Brisbane which means the sand is more often mixed with fines to create mud.

As a playing experience I preferred the old, but the new is fine, and a good test of your short game, as most players will find themselves missing a lot of greens after failing to hold their shots on the putting surfaces. And no, it's not like a Donald Ross Pinehurst #2 upturned saucer kind of experience, as at least there you have some decent grass to chip off when attempting your recovery. Most Members have resorted to putting from off the greens which is still golf, just somewhat limiting.

Change in itself is often met with resistance, regardless of the outcome.

In RQ's situation, they had no choice but to totally redesign their course due to the duplication of the Gateway Bridge. This meant the new layout would need to be situated west of the new bridge utilising inferior land that the Club already owned.

I say inferior because it was dead-flat reclaimed land composed of salt laden river silt - not exactly ideal for exciting golf holes. In fact, as part of the deal done with the Qld Government, RQ continues to own the land to the east of the bridge. This land is far superior, but of course there is now an issue with access due to the bridge corridor. There are plans in place for a new course on that land.

The old RQ was a great members' course that could be brought up to tournament standards simply by growing the rough. The small greens, tight fairways, and ever present wind made for very challenging golf.

In truth though, the course was in need of a revamp after some disastrous attempts by TWP and Ross Watson. In essence it had become a mishmash of conflicting design philosophies and needed updating. Perhaps the best way to describe the old course is it was a parkland course with links-like features in that it had small raised greens, deep pot bunkers, and provided a player options with the approach shots to the greens.

Purely from a design standpoint, I think the new course is really only about the difficulty of the green precincts. Forget for a moment that the Club decided to remain with an old technology grass, 328, which means the greens are very firm and very grainy due to the contours. The effective target areas on the greens are now so precise and unforgiving to anything other than a short iron approach shot, which is why I have said elsewhere, I think it is a big hitters' course. There are too few options available for a run-in approach.

Then there are the bunkers, and yes, I know they are meant to be hazards, as Clayton will readily trot out in defending his work, but they have been problematic from day one and hugely unpopular with the Membership. They were by design way too narrow with steep sides which meant that almost all shots had to be played from a severe down slope at the back of the bunker. Not something that most club golfers are good at. There have been many attempts to rectify this and I understand it is still ongoing. The bunker design also creates maintenance nightmares for greens staff as they wash out with the heavy rain experienced in Brisbane which means the sand is more often mixed with fines to create mud.

As a playing experience I preferred the old, but the new is fine, and a good test of your short game, as most players will find themselves missing a lot of greens after failing to hold their shots on the putting surfaces. And no, it's not like a Donald Ross Pinehurst #2 upturned saucer kind of experience, as at least there you have some decent grass to chip off when attempting your recovery. Most Members have resorted to putting from off the greens which is still golf, just somewhat limiting.

Good to hear an opinion with some facts to back it up. Hear all too often complaints from people, just for the sake of complaining about change. Been a few years since I played there so can't remember all the nuances. Looking back through some photos I have I can see what you mean regarding the narrow bunkers, in particular those green side. If that causes maintenance issues, that definitely is an issue. But looks to have plenty of room to run the ball in on most greens however. Given me a good reason to go back and have another look at the course.

Good to hear an opinion with some facts to back it up. Hear all too often complaints from people, just for the sake of complaining about change. Been a few years since I played there so can't remember all the nuances. Looking back through some photos I have I can see what you mean regarding the narrow bunkers, in particular those green side. If that causes maintenance issues, that definitely is an issue. But looks to have plenty of room to run the ball in on most greens however. Given me a good reason to go back and have another look at the course.

There is room to run the ball onto many of the greens, it's just that the mounding and approaches deflect run in shots. So, difficult to hit and hold, and difficult to run the ball on - that could be interpreted as design genius, or something else.

The heavy watering of the greens to keep them somewhat playable also means that the approaches are soft, and therefore hard to get the ball to run on.